Yeah, it's the day of double-dippin' today. And, the contradiction couldn't be bigger. In one corner we have one of the oldest and most respected distributions, and in the other corner we have the sometimes controversial but immensely popular relative newcomer. Slackware 13.37 and Ubuntu 11.04 have been released.

I'm betting a week or two after Wayland can actually be used by non-Wayland programmers. Would seem to kind of pointless to switch to a non-usable windowing system.

Perhaps a little misinformed?

How is it non-usable? You can run a nested X11 session on top of Wayland and have all your applications working. It does work with all the open source drivers (Intel, Nouveau, ATI/Radeon, etc.) and it allows you to run multiple X11 sessions for backwards compatibility.

It also makes good use of KMS, it doesn't have all the cruft and hacks that X11/Xorg does have, and it's lean and mean. That's far from pointless IMHO.

How is it non-usable? You can run a nested X11 session on top of Wayland and have all your applications working. It does work with all the open source drivers (Intel, Nouveau, ATI/Radeon, etc.) and it allows you to run multiple X11 sessions for backwards compatibility.

"How is it non-usable? You can run a nested X11 session on top of Wayland and have all your applications working. It does work with all the open source drivers (Intel, Nouveau, ATI/Radeon, etc.) and it allows you to run multiple X11 sessions for backwards compatibility.

On Linux. "

We're talking about Linux here (Ubuntu). Perhaps if BSD users want Wayland they should start working on implementing KMS first.

Because it does not work with all hardware
Because it is not released at all
Because it have not been tested enough
Because, as it's just barely useful hosting X session, it only add bloat to the current X
Because no toolkit support it correctly
Because support for essential protocols is non-existant even on paper
Because it's years away from being ready
Because Unity can't work with Wayland by design (compiz)

Because it does not work with all hardware
Because it is not released at all
Because it have not been tested enough
Because, as it's just barely useful hosting X session, it only add bloat to the current X
Because no toolkit support it correctly
Because support for essential protocols is non-existant even on paper
Because it's years away from being ready
Because Unity can't work with Wayland by design (compiz)

I could come up with some more, but its enough

I believe you're trying to knock Wayland too much. Wayland is coming faster than you think.

Because it does not work with all hardware
Because it is not released at all
Because it have not been tested enough
Because, as it's just barely useful hosting X session, it only add bloat to the current X
Because no toolkit support it correctly
Because support for essential protocols is non-existant even on paper
Because it's years away from being ready
Because Unity can't work with Wayland by design (compiz)

How is it non-usable? You can run a nested X11 session on top of Wayland and have all your applications working.

Sooooo, you can run a replacement windowing system ... with your normal X11 windowing system on top ... and that's suddenly better than just running X11 by itself? How is adding extra layers "removing bloat"?

Until there are Wayland apps, toolkits, frameworks, etc, there's really no reason to make it available in Ubuntu as the default. Which is what the OP is about.

Sure, those who want to play with it can install it themselves. Those who want to develop for it can install it themselves.

But it should not be an option on the main Ubuntu install CD until it's a viable alternative to X11, including native app support.

"How is it non-usable? You can run a nested X11 session on top of Wayland and have all your applications working.

Sooooo, you can run a replacement windowing system ... with your normal X11 windowing system on top ... and that's suddenly better than just running X11 by itself? How is adding extra layers "removing bloat"?

Until there are Wayland apps, toolkits, frameworks, etc, there's really no reason to make it available in Ubuntu as the default. Which is what the OP is about.

Sure, those who want to play with it can install it themselves. Those who want to develop for it can install it themselves.

But it should not be an option on the main Ubuntu install CD until it's a viable alternative to X11, including native app support. "

You have no f--king clue of what you are talking about, just like the other idiots in this site.

Wayland does use KMS by default and there is no need to make any configuration to start the compositor. This alone simplifies all the work that Ubuntu has to make in order to automate and secure the booting of the Xorg process so that users won't end with a f--king terminal when they install Ubuntu for first time.

Because to this date a xorg.conf is still needed. Yes, in f--king 2011. And those who say that no xorg.conf is needed they need to learn their system more and stop talking out of their asses.